"BBC elites confounded by their listeners" (self-defense related)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kharn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,999
Location
Maryland
The American Thinker, 1/2/04:
BBC elites confounded by their listeners

The BBC recently gave its radio listeners a chance to express their will, but did not want to hear the result. The great unwashed mass, who cough-up the license fees which pay the Beeb’s freight, were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.

Listeners to BBC 4’s Today program (the very same show which claimed that intelligence on Iraqi WMDs had been “sexed upâ€), reposnded with a suggestion that would allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders, without facing legal liabilities. The winning proposal was denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation" - by Stephen Pound, the very MP whose job it is to try to push it through Parliament.

The Independent reports that Mr Pound's reaction was provoked by the news that the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.

"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."

Having recovered his composure, Mr Pound told The Independent: "We are going to have to re-evaluate the listenership of Radio 4. I would have expected this result if there had been a poll in The Sun. Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"


The Sun is a Murdoch-owned tabloid noted for photos of bare-breasted women and nationalistic support of Britain’s participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

MP Pound’s disdain for popular opinion is typical of not only British, but Western European elites, who consider themselves, and the nations whose public policies they control, to be vastly superior to the uncivilized Yanks, who carry guns and execute vicious criminals. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Britons favor capital punishment, but there is virtually no chance it will be re-introduced to Britain anytime soon.

Segments of the British public have been outraged over the jailing of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who shot a burglar who had broken into his house. In all probability, this outraged fuelled the votes which selected resulted in victory for the self-defense (or ‘vigilante’) law which won the BBC poll.

MP Pound plans cursory introduction of the bill which he promised, but will only go through the motions. He called it "the sort of idea somebody comes up with in a bar on a Saturday night between 'string 'em all up' and 'send 'em all all home'".

More on the story, from the Evening Standard

Posted by Thomas 01 01 03

:rolleyes:
Kharn
 
er......

i) the BBC is cited as "elitist" despite coming up with this idea and getting an MP to back it, as well as publicizing it so that the MP cannot simply "drop it";

ii) the Today programme did not claim that the WMD dossier had been sexed up - one of the journalists reporting for it did, and whats more he was clearly correct, as the Hutton Inquiry found out.

iii) my views on the Sun newspaper are known to most here.
 
Agricola,

WMD, Tony Martin, and charges of elietisim aside, how do you feel about the actual legislation that the majority of Channel 4 listeners voted for?
 
"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."
What? What?

Ag, how does it feel to be governed by elected officials that call a large constituency vulgar names? Has the collective spine of Brits turned to jelly? :barf:

TC
TFL Survivor
 
[Warning: thread hijack in progress :D ]
K-Romulus:
Sadly, no; its my senior year of college, there arent enough hours in the day. :(

Kharn
 
Personally, it will never happen, thankfully.

Hope your windows are securely locked, agricola...:rolleyes:

Ag, how does it feel to be governed by elected officials that call a large constituency vulgar names? Has the collective spine of Brits turned to jelly?

At least the British government has the cojones to insult their voters in public. American politicians still say "please" when they ask you to bend over...:what:
 
Agricola,

Raido 4, and not a majority, simply the winning proposition. Points taken.

In your opinion, what level of force is a citizen of the U.K. justified in using against an intruder in one's own home? (Side note, what is the perfered collective term for someone from the U.K.? Englishman/woman is only England, Scott, Welsh, etc. Is it "Briton"?)

If they are in the act of intruding?

Are caught after intruding?

If after being caught doing either of the above, they refuse to leave but do not threaten or attack?

If the intruder threatens force?

If the intruder makes good on a threat, or attacks?

How the intruder attacks, body fists/hands/kicks, club/bludgon, Knife, Firearm?

No flames, just conversation.

If I've read correctly, you're usually defending the point that the situation in the U.K. is not as bad as the U.K. Right-wing press, and Americans on this board make it out to be. I've also gleaned that you feel that there is some kind of standard of "reasonableness" in the courts, and that the British .gov does not fail the people in matters of self defense in the way that it is often portrayed, correct?

With the exceptions of "make my day laws" for carjacking, "castle doctrine laws" for homes in some states, the legal standard for justifiable violence commited in self defense in the U.S. is "Reasonable fear for one's, or another innocent's, life, or of grave bodily harm." Now granted it's often construed as "reasonable fear" for a burglar, rapist, robber to enter your home uninvited, since most of our courts feel it's unreasonable for the victim to try and ascertain the culprit's intentions.

So I am trying to feel out exactly where you stand on violent self-defense, i.e. hitting, stabbing, shooting, etc. when it's OK, etc.
 
The law as it stands says that you have the right to defend yourself and anyone else - and this includes deadly force, where it is reasonable. the oft-cited case (that of Tony Martin) is bad caselaw, because, as a jury of his peers AND a panel of judges at the Court of Appeal found, Martin was not acting in self defence as Barras was running away - as was the case in Tottenham of last year.

The law as it stands covers all eventualities effectively; the proposed law, if it makes it onto the statute books, would set a precedent in changing the age-old principle of self defence into something else. What about where the person is invited into the home and then refuses to leave? Or the person who has every right to be in that property but is the victim of a "mistake" by the occupier?

AJ Dual,

As I say above, where a violent attack (or a reasonable person could forsee violence being possible) takes place, or is about to take place, common law dictates that reasonable force can be used to prevent or stop such an attack.

Guys, high-profile cases make bad laws.
 
What about where the person is invited into the home and then refuses to leave?

Refusing to leave my property is claiming some right to it. I've worked for it. That's claiming some right to my labor. That's enslaving me. I'll resist with violence.
 
Help us out here, farmer.

the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.

It doesn't really say that, does it? I mean, even here is blood-soaked Florida, there are going to be lots of questions if I shoot an intruder. We also have a Castle Doctrine, but it only says that I do not have to retreat within my home. I can still only defend myself and others, but not my home itself, or any of my property. Personally, if someone breaks into my home and starts taking my stuff, I think I should be able to defend my stuff, but the law doesn't see it that way. When they ask me why I shot him in the back, answering that it was because his back was the part facing me would land me in the clink for a long time.
 
In your opinion, what level of force is a citizen of the U.K. justified in using against an intruder in one's own home? (Side note, what is the perfered collective term for someone from the U.K.? Englishman/woman is only England, Scott, Welsh, etc. Is it "Briton"?)

Briton for singular, British as an adjective. Plural is Britons or British, depending on context (several Britons were involved/ the British do things this way).


As for British home defence law: I think you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, others and your property, including lethal force if necessary.

"Reasonable force" is whatever you can convince the jury you genuinely believed to be reasonable in order to stop the threat you perceived.

Tony Martin went to jail because he couldn't convince the jury that shooting someone in the back as they ran off was reasonable.

(Also, I think that his description of the events didn't match the evidence. Something along the lines of "I stood here and fire warning shots in the air", when he actually stood here and fired at the burglars, or something along those lines, and that may have influenced the jury. As did the fact he used a completely illegal type of weapon (pump-action shotgun) and didn't have licences for all of other guns).

From the Daily Telegraph website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/21/nmart21.xml
His use of an illegally held pump-action shotgun and suggestions that he had previously expressed a hatred of criminals convinced the jury that he had acted with malice. Conversely, it made him a hero in the eyes of much of Middle England, for whom his case encapsulates the plight of people forced to fight rising criminality with scant police support.
 
His use of an illegally held pump-action shotgun and suggestions that he had previously expressed a hatred of criminals convinced the jury that he had acted with malice.


Oh! :what: How dare he hold malice towards criminals! The brute!





Odd. California passed just such a law. The only noticeable result was a drop in burglaries.


Funny how that works.



Leatherneck, the answers to your two questions are:



  1. They like it just fine. :barf:
  2. That happened a long time ago. They are subjects, after all. Oh, there's a happy exception here and there, it's true, but by and large they're happy with they way things are.
    [/list=1]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.